15.  The first two applicants were born in 1930 and 1932 respectively and live in Bucharest. The third applicant lives in Villebon-sur-Yvette, France.
16.  In 1934 S.D., the applicants’ father, a university lecturer, purchased a plot of land of 1,690 sq.m in Predeal, Romania. In 1937 S.D. had a house built on the land.
17.  On 30 August 1946 a room in the house was requisitioned pursuant to an order of Predeal Town Council.
18.  On 22 May 1948 the Braşov prefect ordered the restitution of the house and land (“the property”) to the owner, S.D., but the property was never returned.
19.  On 13 September 1965 the Braşov notarial bureau recorded that the property had been nationalised under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.
20.  On 17 August 1971 the Braşov prefect decided to place the property under the administration of a branch of the Department of State Security (Securitate).
21.  In 1992 the management of the property was transferred to the Romanian Intelligence Service (Serviciul Român de Informatii – “the SRI”), successor to the Securitate.
22.  On 8 January 1993 the first two applicants and Maria Margareta Dumitrescu brought an action for recovery of possession in the Braşov Court of First Instance against SRI Military Command Centre no. 05024. They argued that they were the heirs of S.D., that he had owned 2,686 sq.m of land in Predeal on which he had had a house built, and that in 1946 a room in that house had been requisitioned but that subsequently the State had unlawfully seized the entire property. They sought to establish their title to the house and land as heirs.
23.  In a judgment of 25 May 1993 the court found that the requisition order could not have had the effect of lawfully vesting ownership of the property in the State and that the nationalisation of the property under Decree no. 92/1950 had been unlawful. The court accordingly held that the applicants were the rightful owners of the house and land and ordered the State’s property title to be struck out of the land register and the late S.D. to be registered as owner.
24.  In a final judgment of 20 September 1995 the Braşov Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the SRI on points of law and dismissed the applicants’ action for recovery of possession, holding that the courts below had exceeded their jurisdiction when they had examined the lawfulness of the nationalisation, since such matters could only be settled by statute.
25.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an application for restitution of the property with the Braşov City Council’s administrative board established to deal with the implementation of Law no. 122/1995 (“the Administrative Board”).
26.  In an administrative decision of 29 June 1999 the Administrative Board allowed the application and ordered the property to be returned to the applicants.
27.  On 10 September 1999 the SRI lodged an application to have the administrative decision of 29 June 1999 set aside.
28.  In a final and enforceable judgment, on appeal, the Braşov County Court upheld the administrative decision, finding in particular that the lawfulness of the nationalisation could not be dealt with under the objection procedure provided for by Law no. 112/1995.
29.  In a judgment of 24 October 2000 the Braşov Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the SRI on points of law, setting aside the decision of the Administrative Board in which it had ordered the return of the property. It found that the Administrative Board had not been entitled to give a decision but had been under an obligation to defer its findings until a fresh action for recovery of possession, brought on 22 February 1999, had been dealt with by the courts.
30.  On 22 February 1999 the applicants brought a fresh action for recovery of possession against the State (represented by the Ministry of Finance) and Predeal Town Council.
31.  On 21 February 2003 the Braşov County Court allowed the applicants’ action for recovery of possession.
32.  In a final and irreversible judgment of 15 November 2005, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 21 February 2003.
33.  Since 20 February 2006 the applicants have enjoyed effective possession as a consequence of concluding an act of delivery and receipt of the house with the former occupants, the SRI.